When challenged (by billchoa) to provide examples of insults, I did so with a post of numerous examples of insults by philmcgleno and iacas. That post has since been deleted (surprise, surprise). I could do the same here and provide multiple quotes where iacas has used the word "stupid" in reference to ideas and opinions suggested by me and others but what's the point. It will just get deleted. BTW, I do understand the tables and charts (a gain in 10% distance will lower...

I thought we established that we're not talking about this case. Improving both makes it impossible to answer the question "which is more important?" The question implies that there is a loss of accuracy associated with a gain in distance. My position has always been that the key factor in answering that is the ratio of yards gained to accuracy lost. The evidence presented (by Iacas) to show that distance is, in fact, more important ignores this key factor by assuming a...

I'm not sure what you mean by either statement. I have no problem with on average figures and I didn't mean for that particular ratio to be anything real world just an example of a statement that has meaning. Even if you say "for the slight majority of golfers distance is more important than accuracy" it has vastly more meaning than "in golf distance is more important than accuracy. This graph was presented earlier. Somewhere the creator of the graph says that the...

I'm sorry it's really not about being right it's about understanding. What those tables say is, IF your gain of 20 yards creates a 1 deg. loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will lower your score. I would not dispute that, but that is not the same as saying distance is more important than accuracy in terms of lowering you score because IF the same 20 yards results in a 3 degree loss in accuracy THEN the added distance will not help you score.

Let me sum up MY position. "The statement that "distance is slightly more important than accuracy in lowering scores" has no meaning because it fails to quantify either value. Quantifying one value and not the other also has no meaning. The statement that "a distance gained to accuracy lost ratio of 1:1.2 or better will help in lowering scores" has meaning.

Yes but it does show that the accuracy extremes are greater for the 100 player than the 80 player which is exactly why I think the methods used, where you hold the accuracy lost value constant throughout the different skill levels is invalid.